by David Steven | Nov 4, 2007 | South Asia
Reacting to the crisis in Pakistan, Ali Eteraz, over at the Guardian, argues that only opportunistic opposition politicians, a handful of lawyers, and decadent democracy-addled Westerners are likely to get too upset by events of the past few days.
Ordinary people yearn for stability, he says, and are enjoying the economic good times Musharraf has inspired. Even ‘democracy-promoting analysts’ (spit) are forced to admire the President’s economic management, he argues.
Victor Davis Hansen, writing from the other side of the Atlantic (and across a rather big political divide), is a reluctant supporter of democracy (‘ultimately our only choice’), but an ardent critic of Pakistan and its people:
It would be hard to think of a bigger mess than Pakistan: nuclear; half the population radically Islamic; vast sanctuaries for the architects of 9/11; a virulent anti-Americanism in which aid and military credits are demanded but never appreciated; dictatorship at odds with America’s professed support for Middle-East constitutional government.
But are these beliefs backed up the facts?
According to the best available polling – conducted every six three months by the International Republican Institute – no. According to the latest poll (pdf), conducted in September, when the situation in the country was deteriorating, but not yet critical:
Pakistanis were deeply concerned by the direction in which their country was heading, with 73% believing things were getting worse. What is striking is how rapidly pessimism had grown. Only 44% had believed things were going downhill a year ago; 59% just three months back.
Contrary to Davis Hansen’s belief, the population seemed highly agitated by rising extremism. 74% agreed that it was a serious problem for the country, only 21% disagree. 57%, meanwhile, believed that Taliban and Al Qaida operations in Waziristan were a serious challenge.
However, economic concerns were much more pressing. Asked about the key issues they’d vote for in an election: inflation came top (37%), followed by unemployment (20%); poverty (11%); and law and order (10%).
But contra Eteraz, Pakistanis were hurting economically. 56% believed they were worse off financially than a year before (up from 34% three months previously).
Little surprise then that Musharraf’s approval rating, which was above 60% in 2006, had tanked to 21% (this would be bad even for George Bush).
In September, most people thought their President should go, with 70% sure he should resign and another 8% thinking that maybe he should. Only 23% wanted him re-elected President even if he had ‘doffed’ his uniform. No matter – the President bullied his way back into power, keeping the uniform on.
A state of emergency, the poll suggests, will have gone down like a lead balloon. In September, only 8% thought declaring an emergency would be a good idea, while 62% wanted the army completely out of politics.
In justifying suspending the constitution, Musharraf went out of his way to attack the media (“contributed to this downslide, this negative thinking, this negative projection”) and the courts (“the judiciary has interfered”).
The media and the courts are, of course, Pakistan’s most popular institutions, with an 80% and 77% approval rating respectively.
So, in a country whose population is demoralized and suffering economically, we have a spectacularly unpopular President taking on the country’s two most trusted institutions.
So where will Musharraf get his support? From the army? Maybe, but even it is losing its lustre (approval down to 70% from 82% in three months).
Or parliament? He’s left the National Assembly in place (a ‘shrewd move’ Eteraz reckons, which will keep people off the street), but it has an approval rating of only 42%. And let’s hope he doesn’t need the police. They are the most hated of all at 13%.
“If I have your companionship,” he told the Pakistani people yesterday in the Urdu portion of yesterday’s televised address. “I have no doubt, God Willing, Pakistan will be back to the forefront and this derailed train will be, God Willing, back on track.”
Perhaps Musharraf will get away with this desperate attempt to cling to power. But companionship with the people? That, I think, is one eventuality we can rule out.
by David Steven | Nov 3, 2007 | North America, South Asia
According to the BBC, the long-awaited state of emergency in Pakistan has finally arrived:
Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country’s constitution.
Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who condemned the moves, has reportedly been sacked and is being confined to the Supreme Court with 10 other judges.
It comes as the court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf’s re-election victory in October.
Alex’s colleague at New York University, Barney Rubin is live-blogging the coup:
So far it looks like the Army has kept the politicians out of Islamabad by arranging for PIA to go on strike on Friday, when they are all in their constituencies. So far it is calm. I’ll report as I can.
Key question is how the US administration will react. If you listen to John Bolton, you get the impression that at least some of his old colleagues will be quite relieved:
Musharraf is rightly faulted for many things, especially inadequately purging the army of Islamic militants and a listless pursuit of al Qaeda, but does anyone seriously argue that politicians will better harness Pakistan’s military?
With a nuclear arsenal up for grabs, the stakes in Pakistan are high. Bolstered by the Bush administration’s evident support, the politicians continue to try to force Musharraf out, which likely will be hailed as a triumph of democracy.
That may be, but I am far from certain that elected civilians running Islamabad will make us safer from a loss of command-and-control over those nuclear weapons, or from the danger that they will come into terrorist hands. This is a risky way to experiment with democratic theory.
Update: Benazir is in Dubai. Will she head back to Pakistan? No, says Zubeir Bashir, a spokesman for her party:
She can’t go back to Pakistan now due to the state of emergency. If she goes back they would arrest her.
Yes, says her husband:
“(She’s flying back) tonight, yes of course,” Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari told Reuters by telephone from Dubai, saying she was already on the plane.
Update II: Text of the proclamation of emergency is here. Radicals and judges get equal blame:
WHEREAS there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan;
WHEREAS there has also been a spate of attacks on State infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;
WHEREAS some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the Government and the nation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace…
by David Steven | Nov 1, 2007 | Global system
NYT:
Karen P. Hughes, one of the few remaining members of President Bush’s circle of longtime Texas advisers, said today that she will return to private life, stepping down as the head of public diplomacy at the State Department sometime in December.
Update: Some plaudits from the right. David Frum:
My column for this weekend’s National Post will try to explain why Karen Hughes so signally failed as US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Hint: It’s not because she is a shallow and ill-informed person with scant experience of the world outside America’s borders but dangerously unlimited confidence in her own abilities. Although of course that didn’t help.
Michelle Malkin:
Given her abject dhimmi tendencies, this is a good thing.
From the left. Crooks and Liars:
For those keeping score, that means 8 out of the 9 Texan Bushie loyalists has packed their bags and gone home.
Scott MacLeod:
Spin, I guess, doesn’t work as well in the Middle East as it does in Washington.
by Alex Evans | Oct 20, 2007 | Cooperation and coherence, Influence and networks, North America
Who’d have thought it? UNCLOS – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, hardly the sexiest multilateral environmental agreement around – has become a cause celebre for both the the progressive end of the US blogosphere and the Pentagon. What gives?
Here’s the story so far. UNCLOS, which covers issues like defining maritime zones, protecting the marine environment and preserving freedom of navigation, came into force in 1994. The US has signed it, but the Senate – where a band of diehards led by Sen. James Inhofe wants to block the treaty- has not yet ratified it. So far, so predictable.
But now the fun starts. First, why is the Administration – including the Pentagon, and indeed the President himself – telling the Senate to get a move on and ratify? Since when does the Pentagon care about this sort of thing? And second, why is the progressive blogosphere right alongside them in this endeavour?
Let’s take the bloggers first. They’re interested in the treaty not because of its environmental benefits (though those are fine by them too), but primarily because they think they can use it tactically to marginalise their enemies. Here’s Scott Paul at the Washington Note:
…the opposition to the Bolton nomination was a battle well chosen. It was very important on its merits: it successfully weakened and then partially removed an extremely negative element from the administration. But just as important was its execution. Thanks to some smart group decisions on strategy and message, the Bolton campaign is making current battles against pugnacious nationalism more winnable than before.
The effort to ratify the Law of the Sea convention is a campaign that matters for similar reasons. Yes, the Law of the Sea is compelling on its face. The armed forces rightly wants its navigational and overflight rights protected. Environmentalists rightly want the U.S. to join and add to global ocean stewardship efforts. And U.S. companies should have a chance to compete with foreign firms for offshore resources…
All of these are good reasons for the U.S. to accede to the Law of the Sea, but none of them alone or even in combination would necessarily make it important for the progressive agenda. So why is the Law of the Sea significant? Simple: our absence from the Law of the Sea is the outer wall of Fortress America. Winning the ratification battle would seriously de-fang the same pugnacious nationalists who are on the opposite side of almost every important foreign policy issue facing the U.S.
Matt Stoller expands on the point:
Without being able to pass the very basic Law of the Sea treaty, there is no way we will ever get a treaty through on global warming, create the space to internationalize the Iraq mess, or work with allies abroad in any coherent manner. Fortunately, this is extremely winnable. All it will take is some floor time from Reid, and we’ll win, embarrass, and marginalize the hyper-nationalists.
Note also the messaging strategies that progressive bloggers are using. Take this post by Taylor Marsh, for instance, which employs the derisive term “black helicopter crowd” no less than seven times to describe Sen. Inhofe’s band. It’s a pretty smart marginalising strategy, especially given that the national security tribe want the treaty.
Which leads us on to our other question. What does the Pentagon care? And what makes UNCLOS such a big deal that President Bush himself should endorse it? Essentially, the answer has to with securing access to international waters for the US Navy. The military worries that without being a party to the treaty, states might arbitrarily restrict access to US ships.
Well, fine, but that doesn’t altogether explain the urgency. This is hardly a new concern, is it? Well, actually, it is: step forward the emerging spat over the Northwest Passage, which in a warmer world becomes navigable by normal ships rather than just icebreakers. Canadian PM Stephen Harper is trying to make the case that the Passage lies within Canada’s waters – and hence that Canada gets to choose who sails through it. And if the US ratifies UNCLOS, it gains an important new tool in its kit for contesting Canada’s claim. QED!
So that, my friends, is the story of how the Pentagon, the netroots, President Bush and the Natural Resources Defense Council all got into bed with each other. Say what you like about climate change, it sure can trigger some curious political realignments…
by David Steven | Oct 19, 2007 | North America, South Asia
130 people reported dead in Pakistan and Scrappleface – the right-wing answer to the Onion – sees an opportunity to use its wit to settle some political scores. Nice.
As the death toll climbed past 130, with nearly 400 injured, in a suicide-bomb assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the attack as “symptomatic of fundamentalist Islam’s crusade against equality for women.”
Rep. Pelosi, D-CA, said the fact that a prominent female politician was targeted has shaken her thinking about the war on terror.
“This misogynistic massacre has finally got it through my thick skull what President Bush has been trying to tell us for years,” she said. “These terrorists have no legitimate political grievance, no conscience, and no place in civilized society. We must crush them wherever they are to prevent the spread of their poisonous ideology and brutal tactics.”
Rep. Pelosi said that when news of the attack broke, she held a conference call with Senators Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-CA. The three women agreed that “if these evil men are willing to attack a beautiful, charismatic female politician overseas, there’s not much to stop them from trying it on U.S. soil.”
The three lawmakers plan to introduce legislation next week to increase funding for the surge in Iraq, to finish the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and to remove barriers to eavesdropping by U.S. spies on suspected terrorist communications at home and abroad.
“These woman-haters need to know that we mean business,” Rep. Pelosi said. “And to those who commit these atrocities against women, I say, we will no longer tolerate, we will no longer negotiate, and we will no longer be afraid. It’s your turn to be afraid.“
